Terminator 5 confirmed as a reboot

[PurpleGaga27 37]

The good news, Arnold is back for the fifth Terminator movie. (but it will be his last?)

The other good news, Emilia Clarke and Jason Clarke are going to be in the movie as well.

The bad news, it's a reboot, and the 5th title is called Terminator Genesis which is slated for a release in July 2015.

 

THE PEOPLE NEVER ASKED FOR THE REBOOT!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Terminator-Reboot-Title-Revealed-Better-Or-Worse-40607.html

and

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Terminator-Reboot-Casts-Game-Thrones-Emilia-Clarke-Sarah-Connor-40700.html

 

Why a reboot? James Cameron already knew that the series has run its course after the fourth Terminator film. The issue now is that the series lacked a conclusion to the series and the people wanted it. The producers should have considered ending the story series before going for a reboot. And besides, the series wouldn't be epic without Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

What do you think, guys?

Edited December 14, 2013 by zocom7

[Doctor Destiny 40]

I couldn't care less honestly. The first two were masterpieces, three was alright and four was bad. I'll stick with 1 and 2. But a reboot might not be so bad either. It remains to be seen.

[Nmenth 289]

I hate reboots. People need to use their imaginations and come up with new stories instead of attempting to resell an old idea to a new generation.

[Nyerguds 100]

In This Thread: Zocom once again whines about something no one really cares about

[Doctor Destiny 40]

I hate reboots. People need to use their imaginations and come up with new stories instead of attempting to resell an old idea to a new generation.

Reboots aren't bad things. It just depends on what they do with it that determines the quality. Some stories can be retold several times and still be awesome.

[Nmenth 289]

I wouldn't say reboots are inherently bad, just that they've never been good. In other words, they probably could be awesome, but I don't recall it ever happening.

[Gben 20]

I much preferred 4 over 3, and I still think 1 is the best.

 

Reboot that worked IMO:

DREDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Honourable mentions to:-

Batman (Nolan)

Star Trek (Abrams)

Spiderman (Sam Rami)

 

UPDATE:
A failed reboot, IMO, is the same story with cool special affects or simply new actors. A Successful reboot adds to the characters or the universe or use a relevant pop-culture reference in a clever way. The total recall reboot movie was fun, but didn't add anything. At some point, someone is going to reboot LOTR and I wonder how they are going to pull it off...

[Luk3us 63]

Reboots, there are too many damn reboots, just keeping make sequels till you reach 15, then you can reboot it.

[Traymen 6]

Reboot that worked IMO:

DREDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I wouldn't agree.

I share opinion that this movie is a copy of well known "RAID" made by Gareth Evans in 2011. Same idea, but they added a name of "Dredd" in title. Unlike "Judge Dredd" from 1995, it's just a mediocre copy of genuine ideas from other movies.

[Plok 319]

Honourable mentions to:-

Star Trek (Abrams)

That's open for discussion. The acting and the storyline progression have significantly improved over what the franchise has already had, at least after 1994, but the lore is now completely screwed up (Danube-ish class shuttles in ST:XII, w00t). It also seems like Star Trek: Enterprise, which has an enormous collection of continuity errors in relation to the rest of the series (starting from the very pilot!), is canon thanks to the reboot.

[Gben 20]

Re: Dredd

The character is what is important - not the plot.

(I was a BIG dredd-comic fan! And I own the RAID - which is an awesome film in it's own right! I personally got a thrill seeing the West-Irian-jayan-machette-weilding-gang... (PNG))

 

Re: Star Trek

I never go into ST film expecting continuity.

What the Abrams did really well was a reinvention of an idea. He took risks that I would never, but I never would have attempted this in the first place.

I nominate ST because it has more right than wrong.

 

I noticed Kotaku is asking the same question since the new Robocop is imminent.

[Traymen 6]

Re: Dredd

The character is what is important - not the plot.

 

However, the movie doesn't reveal who Dredd is, from where is he, or why he behave like that. He just enter this skyscraper and begins the mess. His motives are not clear. Audience only knows, that he totally obey the law.

 

This movie obligates, to read the comic book first, and then to turn on the movie. You can't do that! Just compare this with LotR or Hobbit, or any other book-based movie. I never had read the whole Hobbit, but i know what the problem is, i know who are the characters, and why they do this or that.

In "Dredd" i'm just pushed into the action and been told to handle myself.

 

It's mediocre movie. I've seen worse (like Batman: Forever).

[Gben 20]

The plot of the Dredd movie is just a flashpoint of just a typical day.

When he walked out the door, I got the sense he was going right back on patrol.

 

My memory of the comic - which granted I haven't read for a while - is that Dredd is the rock of granite that doesn't get explained. It's all the other characters and situations around him that get explained. Dredd is the ultimate straight man for the crazy universe.

 

No origin story needed. Personal motivation not needed. Emotional teenage angst not needed. Psychological analysis not needed.

You found it mediocre, I found it refreshing.

 

Re: Hobbit

I think a simple story stretched out over three loooong movies is a bad counter-argument.